cursed for seeing your dad naked?

hello everyone,
let me start this thread off with the most utmost respect for anyone of african american origin. it is just that this question i have has been bugging me for the longest time. let me start this off with the scripture that started this:Genesis 9 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. ok, let me get to my point. i was told already by two christian friends that the descendants of Ham, are the modern-day african americans. just wanted to know if anyone knew if this was true, and if it is, if there is any scriptural basis or perhaps historical basis for anyone to claim this. if it is false, then i am a moron and may God smite me for even considering this, but most of all i apologize if i offended anyone.

Well since the 'white' gene is a mutant which became a beneficial and replicated as the people traveled north it appears that your 'friends' may have it a little misconstrued...ie whisper ...odds are adam and eve were dark (despite the European paintings), so while it may be the case that africans are descended it is not a curse...

I really like how your 'friends' indicated that African Americans were descended from this...sort of implies that the ones that stayed or emmigrated elsewhere were not...interesting sortings we come up with when we start out with the intention finding some justification of our personal bias 'cough' bigotry.

Tis a great way though of finding out who we should have as our 'friends' these kind of insights are...

Well since the 'white' gene is a mutant which became a beneficial and replicated as the people traveled north it appears that your 'friends' may have it a little misconstrued...ie whisper ...odds are adam and eve were dark (despite the European paintings), so while it may be the case that africans are descended it is not a curse...

I really like how your 'friends' indicated that African Americans were descended from this...sort of implies that the ones that stayed or emmigrated elsewhere were not...interesting sortings we come up with when we start out with the intention finding some justification of our personal bias 'cough' bigotry.

Tis a great way though of finding out who we should have as our 'friends' these kind of insights are...

Click to expand...

ok, i read thru your post just to be sure i understood it. i will have you know that my friends and i aren't white, but of hispanic origin, so we aren't biased or racist or prejudice. just want to clear that up.

ok, i read thru your post just to be sure i understood it. i will have you know that my friends and i aren't white, but of hispanic origin, so we aren't biased or racist or prejudice. just want to clear that up.

Click to expand...

They probably read/heard it somewhere, I've heard the same thing before.

Pattimax is probably right, "uncovering" is just a very prudish way of saying something else, goes to show that the bible is not very child friendly!

The "curse of Ham" has been used by some members of Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of African ancestry, who were thought to be descendants of Ham (often called Hamites), either through Canaan or his older brothers. This racist theory was common during the 18th-20th centuries, but has been largely abandoned even by the most conservative theologians since the mid-20th century.

It seems that the racial connotations originate well before american and european slavery.

Didn't really want to go into this... (I know- I should not have started, but I AM curious)Ham did more than SEE his father naked.

Click to expand...

I heard a similiar claim. This theory hinges of Genesis 9:24:

"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him." [Emphasis mine]

Which implies than something more happened than a glance at his father's nakedness.

But while we are on the subject, I've heard another theory: That Noah didn't know he made fermented wine. The reason is because before the flood, there was a canopy of water that covered the earth and kept heavy ozone conditions that retarded the fermentation process of the juice of the grapes, and therefore any grape juice drunken before the flood did not cause intoxication. But after the flood, the conditions of the atmosphere worsened and grape juice was subject to fermentation, so when Noah made his vineyard and produced the grape juice, it soon turned into wine and thus his drunkenes was accidental. Those same ozone conditions were also responsible for the gradually shortened lifespans evident in the chronology of Noah's descendents after the flood.

They probably read/heard it somewhere, I've heard the same thing before.

Pattimax is probably right, "uncovering" is just a very prudish way of saying something else, goes to show that the bible is not very child friendly!

It seems that the racial connotations originate well before american and european slavery.

Click to expand...

Yes, we've heard it before...keeping the story going today is ridiculous.

Slave trade in the US began in the early 17th century, probably the reason the conjecture was made. Many bible verses were used to keep slaves in line and to keep slavery acceptable. Slaves were also not allowed to read so as to stay away from the verses that would benefit their plight.

Noah made his vineyard and produced the grape juice, it soon turned into wine and thus his drunkenes was accidental. Those same ozone conditions were also responsible for the gradually shortened lifespans evident in the chronology of Noah's descendents after the flood.

Click to expand...

So that explains why Noah became an alcoholic. Shows how sneaky Satan can be.

We must always remember who was writing this stuff. Of course, those who claim Shem as their progenitor with Shem's line being the one the Jewish writers followed would likely disparage the other two lines of descent from Noah. But we all know now that Noah himself was a makeover of an older Sumerian legendary figure, so in essence, it's all tribal propaganda which has led unfortunately to racist policies by Jews and Christians while Muslims are much freer of racial prejudice.

Noah may have cursed Ham but God didn't. Otherwise, why would the Promised Land be named after Ham's son?

Didn't really want to go into this... (I know- I should not have started, but I AM curious)Ham did more than SEE his father naked.

Click to expand...

I gotta feeling I may regret entering this....

You are pointed in the right direction, according to some teachings. "Uncovering his father's nakedness" is a figure of speech, supposedly, that conveys much more than simply seeing his dad without any clothes on. It has to do with sex, and Ham's mother (Noah's wife, therefore his "nakedness"), and I think I will leave the remainder to imagination...but that is why Noah was so pee'd and went so far as to curse Ham.

BTW, I agree with wil, that some of these interpretations are "convenient" to time and place, although I had heard them before. Somewhere around here, I think in the Applied Anthropology thread, I brought to light the research made known about a year and a half ago about a mutant skin gene in fair skinned peoples of European descent. Seems Caucasians descended from Africans, not the other way around, at least according to current thinking by genetic studies. Interestingly though, this mutant gene is *not* the cause for Oriental fair skin...that is still open to discovery.

We must always remember who was writing this stuff. Of course, those who claim Shem as their progenitor with Shem's line being the one the Jewish writers followed would likely disparage the other two lines of descent from Noah. But we *all* know now that Noah himself was a makeover of an older Sumerian legendary figure, so in essence, it's all tribal propaganda which has led unfortunately to racist policies by Jews and Christians while Muslims are much freer of racial prejudice.

Noah may have cursed Ham but God didn't. Otherwise, why would the Promised Land be named after Ham's son?

Click to expand...

Ummm...no, we *don't* all know this. Frankly, it is supposition. And not well supported supposition at that.

ok, i read thru your post just to be sure i understood it. i will have you know that my friends and i aren't white, but of hispanic origin, so we aren't biased or racist or prejudice. just want to clear that up.

Click to expand...

I want to touch on this as gingerly as I can. I am not accusing, I am merely stating what I have found in my experience.

Bias, racism and prejudice are not exclusive to any singular race or gender or culture. In fact, one needn't look far to find these in every culture and race, if one is willing to lay the definitions raw and bare. I think we all have bias and prejudices. Most of us here try very hard to do away with these, but sometimes prejudice can lay unknown and dormant for a long time if unchallenged. Prejudice is not simply a white on black thing. It is not simply a white on anything thing. I have known black people who were prejudiced, I have known oriental people who were prejudiced, I have known hispanics who were prejudiced. One might be perfectly OK with people of any race, nationality or skin color, and still hold prejudice against poor people, or disabled people, or non-traditional sexuality, or gender, or old people. It is still prejudice. I think politics, especially in the western countries, has polluted the term and brought an unfair bias to the meaning of the term, causing an undue prejudice against a specific skin color. I have heard some imply that it is only right, giving back what was dished out for so long...but that is not right. Prejudice is prejudice, no matter who from and who receives. One cannot desire an end to prejudice by *falsely* justifying prejudice. That only serves to promote and continue prejudice.

I have been prejudiced, and I have had prejudice aimed against me. I try to overcome my prejudices when I become aware of them. I deal in the most tactful manner I can with those who treat me with prejudice.

I bring this up to clarify, not to accuse. We *all* have our demons to deal with. Side-stepping and avoiding the issue are not constructive ways of dealing with the issue. We all must learn to face our demons head on, and exorcise them ourselves. No one is immune.

i knew something would come out of my comment, anyways, here we go. sorry about the misconception, but i was refering to just me and my two friends not being prejudiced about blacks in this thread. though, i know what you mean about everyone having prejudices. i will be the first to let everyone know that i have a crap load of prejudices. i hate this world for crying out loud! even the disciples and Christ were prejudiced in matthew 15:23-26. so there truly is nothing new under the sun.

Bias, racism and prejudice are not exclusive to any singular race or gender or culture. In fact, one needn't look far to find these in every culture and race, if one is willing to lay the definitions raw and bare. I think we all have bias and prejudices. Most of us here try very hard to do away with these, but sometimes prejudice can lay unknown and dormant for a long time if unchallenged. Prejudice is not simply a white on black thing. It is not simply a white on anything thing. I have known black people who were prejudiced, I have known oriental people who were prejudiced, I have known hispanics who were prejudiced. One might be perfectly OK with people of any race, nationality or skin color, and still hold prejudice against poor people, or disabled people, or non-traditional sexuality, or gender, or old people. It is still prejudice. I think politics, especially in the western countries, has polluted the term and brought an unfair bias to the meaning of the term, causing an undue prejudice against a specific skin color. I have heard some imply that it is only right, giving back what was dished out for so long...but that is not right. Prejudice is prejudice, no matter who from and who receives. One cannot desire an end to prejudice by *falsely* justifying prejudice. That only serves to promote and continue prejudice.

Click to expand...

i completely agree with you on this, man.

I bring this up to clarify, not to accuse. We *all* have our demons to deal with. Side-stepping and avoiding the issue are not constructive ways of dealing with the issue. We all must learn to face our demons head on, and exorcise them ourselves. No one is immune.

Click to expand...

you and i think very alike on taking our demons head on. very few actually do this and take the easy way out. you are correct in doing this. amen and amen. God bless you...

out of curiousity can any brit tell me if black people are referred to as african-english? Are we the only ones that do this? What brought the question up was leos original post stating that he respected people of african american descent and I thought that it sounded wierd like maybe he should have just said "of african descent" which led to the thought of how a black person in the UK would read that...